Discussion about chess-playing software (engines, hosts, opening books, platforms, etc...)
Swaminathan
Posts: 375 Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:14 pm
Post
by Swaminathan Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:23 pm
Results of
STS 1-13 for
Critter 0.90 :
Single CPU, Q6600, 32 bits, Arena 2.5 beta
Code: Select all
STS 01: 94
STS 02: 80
STS 03: 84
STS 04: 89
STS 05: 86
STS 06: 84
STS 07: 83
STS 08: 74
STS 09: 79
STS 10: 85
STS 11: 84
STS 12: 83
STS 13: 84Total :
I had sent the logfile to Gailhac to see if STS Stat could be made to work with scores from STS 13 taken into account.
Critter 0.80
In comparison with
Critter 0.70 http://sites.google.com/site/strategict ... st-results
1000 Positions
BB+
Posts: 1484 Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:26 am
Post
by BB+ Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:01 am
Stockfish 1.9 only had 975/1200 on the first 12 tests, while Critter 0.90 got 1005.
kingliveson
Posts: 1388 Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:22 amReal Name: Franklin TitusLocation: 28°32'1"N 81°22'33"W
Post
by kingliveson Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:35 am
Take this with a grain of salt as it's a small sample. Both engines play the same positions as white/black:
P A W N Knight >> Bishop >> Rook Queen
kingliveson
Posts: 1388 Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:22 amReal Name: Franklin TitusLocation: 28°32'1"N 81°22'33"W
Post
by kingliveson Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:59 am
Critter vs Houdini:
P A W N Knight >> Bishop >> Rook Queen
Swaminathan
Posts: 375 Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:14 pm
Post
by Swaminathan Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:23 am
BB+ wrote: Stockfish 1.9 only had 975/1200 on the first 12 tests, while Critter 0.90 got 1005.
Frank Quisinsky recommended me to test Stockfish 1.91 (which is reportedly much much better than 1.9)
I hadn't gotten around to testing it. I had only tested 1.9 which is slightly weaker.
From what I've seen
Stockfish 1.91 > Critter 0.9 > Stockfish 1.9
Swaminathan
Posts: 375 Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:14 pm
Post
by Swaminathan Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:27 am
Another reason might be that authors of Stockfish don't often tune their engine and optimise it with STS, they just make changes and do few tests.
ernest
Posts: 247 Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:33 am
Post
by ernest Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:49 pm
Swaminathan wrote: Frank Quisinsky recommended me to test Stockfish 1.91 (which is reportedly much much better than 1.9)
This is stupid : in infinite analysis 1.9 and 1.91 give
exactly the same PVs
(which is also what the Stockfish authors said, when giving out the 1.91)
In 64-bit, the 1.91 is even 2-3% faster than 1.9
kingliveson
Posts: 1388 Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:22 amReal Name: Franklin TitusLocation: 28°32'1"N 81°22'33"W
Post
by kingliveson Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm
Knew something was missing -- here it is vs Rybka:
P A W N Knight >> Bishop >> Rook Queen
Swaminathan
Posts: 375 Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:14 pm
Post
by Swaminathan Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:11 am
ernest wrote: Swaminathan wrote: Frank Quisinsky recommended me to test Stockfish 1.91 (which is reportedly much much better than 1.9)
This is stupid : in infinite analysis 1.9 and 1.91 give
exactly the same PVs
(which is also what the Stockfish authors said, when giving out the 1.91)
In 64-bit, the 1.91 is even 2-3% faster than 1.9
In 32 bit, it's even faster,
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 32&t=36565
